Why Africa’s Future is Bleak: Recidivist Insecurity, Nigeria and France as Definienda
Bola A. Akinterinwa
One of Africa’s most critical problems is definitional in character. Non-African people think Africa’s problem is non-development. At a point in time, Africa was considered as underdeveloped. At another time, it is argued that Africa should not be insulted and that Africa is developing. Impression is given that, in the continuum of development, countries considered to be developed have already reached their crescendo of development. Perception of Africa as underdeveloped has been so critical that African leaders have had to acquiesce to it.
According to former US President, Donald Trump, Africa is a continent of pit holes. If you ask David Cameron about Africa, he can say Africa is fantastically corrupt and not just Nigeria. Those who were ignorant of Africa in the beginning considered their challenges in reaching the peoples of Africa, and therefore, called Africa the darkest continent and a discovery. They discovered Africa in the same mania of discovery of America. Put simply, Africa is dark and therefore needs sunlight. And most disturbingly, the developed countries has divided the whole world into three main types: First, Second, and Third World.
The first world is considered the developed countries in which the United States and Canada, UK, Germany, Japan, etc. belong. The second world is comprised essentially of the Eastern European and Asian countries, including Russia and China. Not much goodness is seen about Africa by the First and Second Worlds. The Third World is generally seen as a terra cognita for diseases and squalor, insecurity, and global setbacks. Even when diseases are carried from elsewhere to Africa by non-Africans, Africa is still held responsible for the carriage of the diseases. In this regard, has Africa any brighter future? Can there be any change of perception of Africa? Whatever is the case, we strongly observe that Africa’s future is bleak, not necessarily because of colonial impact and other external factors but essential because of Africa’s recidivist insecurity, France’s policy of Africa, and Nigeria’s uncertain future.
Africa: A Problem and a Desideratum
The world without Africa creates a void and can never be complete without Africa. A Welsh journalist and explorer, Henry Morton Stanley, claimed to have read more than 130 books on Africa before going to Africa on mission. He not only said Africa was a ‘dark,’ but also referred to Africa as the ‘darkest’ continent. In spite of this, Africa is still a desideratum for humanity. Africa is rich in various dimensions. For example, the Imouraren mine in Northern Niger is one of the world’s biggest uranium mines with an estimated 200,000 tonnes. The industrial powers need the uranium for production of nuclear energy. With this production output, Niger Republic remains one of the biggest uranium producers in the world. This is apart from Namibia’s 470,100 metric tons of uranium in recoverable resources as of 2021 which was the largest amount in Africa. South Africa, with its 320,900 recoverable resources remained the second main uranium producer in Africa.
In the same vein, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is on record to have exceptional natural resources like cobalt, copper, gold, coal and iron-ore deposits, in addition to being the world’s second-largest rainforest, and having offshore petroleum, and bauxite. The DRC accounts for 70% of global production and the world’s second-largest producer of copper. The DRC is also the leading producer of coltan. All these resources are from the so-called darkest continent and the resources are indispensable for the industrial growth and development of Europe.
In terms of human resources, Africa accounts for 18.3% of total world population in 2024 and is rated as number 2 among the regions of the world, with 1.22 billion people. Explained differently, Africa is the second-largest continent by geographic area, covering about 30 million square kilometres. It is also the second-most populous continent globally. Of the total population of Africa, black Africans account for 75% while the descendants of the Dutch, English, French and Germans account for 14%. They came to Africa as from the end of the 17th century.
What is noteworthy about the geo-political notion of Africa is best explained by international politics which has different typologies of Africa. First, the international community considers Africa as one of the regions of the world, and therefore divides it into five sub-regions: West, North, Central, East, and Southern. But for various reasons of force majeure, and particularly for continental political unity and economic integration, the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community redefined Africa not as a region. In other words, it redefined the UN definition of sub-region as a region, and thus making Africa a continent of five regions, with the possibility of carving out sub-regions out of each region or from two or three regions (see Articles 1(d) and 1(e) of the Treaty.
In this regard, while African leaders have been complying with the redefined concept of Africa of five regions, the international community does not appear to be complying with the African redefinition. Whereas, the ultimate objective of the African leaders’ redefinition is to fast track Africa’s growth and development through integration. The belief is that if integration is promoted through regionalisation, the future would be quite brighter for Africa. And true enough, the West Africa region is on record to be the most advanced in terms of regional integration in Africa. Why should African leaders be talking about an Africa of five regions and the international community has not been compelled to adopt Africa’s redefinition? Is it the world that must give name to Africa or what Africans say what their name is?
Secondly, there is the concept of Maghrebin Africa and Africa South of the Sahara. Maghrebin Africa refers to Arab Maghreb or Northwest Africa or the western part of the Arab world. The Arab Maghreb is a major issue not only for Africa, but also a foreign policy dilemma for Europe and America. The Arab Maghreb comprises Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. Initially, Mauritania was geo-politically part of West Africa, when the country was part of the ECOWAS. Mauritania left the ECOWAS in December 2000 to join the Arab Maghreb. Morocco is on record to have sought membership of the European Union and also the membership of the ECOWAS. In other words, Morocco wants to be European, African, and Arab State simultaneously. The European Union and the ECOWAS are yet to respond favourably to Morocco’s request.
The problem at the American level is different from organisational membership. The United States wants an Arab country to become a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council. The requirement for UNSC membership includes being a region of the world and the Arab world does not constitute a region of the world. The US therefore not only wants to take advantage of Egypt, being also considered as an African country, but also have one of the two seats reserved for Africa for Egypt. By implication, Nigeria and South Africa are to contest for the other seat. Besides, rather than have Nigeria and South Africa as Permanent Members, US strategic calculation is not only to have Egypt, but also Germany and Japan as permanent members. While the membership of Egypt is to serve the purposes of consolidating and strengthening US ties with the Arab world, especially because of Israel, the Germano-Japanese membership is to ensure more of their voluntary contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security.
Thus, there is the Africa of multi-coloured people in Southern Africa, the Africa of the Arabs, and the African people south of the Sahara. The essence of the foregoing classification is to suggest that the consideration of a Permanent Seat for Africa has to be clearly defined in terms of the beneficiary. Egyptian candidature is apparently for the Arab world which is not a region by UN definitional criteria. Nigeria is the most eminently qualified to have a seat on merit for Africa south of the Sahara, having been contributing to UN peace support operations since 1960. South Africa only came into the picture in 1994. Even though Egypt and South Africa contribute more than Nigeria in terms of assessed and voluntary dues to the UN, Nigeria’s Africa policy makes her stand out above all others. African leaders, particularly Nigerian leaders, should not wake up one day to discover that final decisions on the matter had been taken to their detriment. This is one major concern that explains why Africa’s future may be bleak
Thirdly, Africa of 54 countries is now the equivalent of one developed country in global politics. France started this politics with the introduction of Franco-African summits during which the Francophone African countries collectively meet with France rotationally in France and Africa. While many observers see the development from a post-colonial angle, the European-Africa, India-Africa, China-Africa, Japan-Africa, summits are not driven by colonial considerations, but by non-belief in sovereign equality. Again most unfortunately, African leaders do not see this as a major problem. They are very happy to be summoned to Washington and have a handshake with the most powerful leader in global politics, etc.
And true enough, Africa is divided against itself in many ways while the world is united against it in terms of exploitation of Africa’s mineral resources. Several African countries still behave along colonial linguistic factors. The signing of the Alliance des États du Sahel (AES) is not simply about common defence against the ECOWAS military threats and ultimatum, but also common opposition to French language and civilisation. Besides, Egypt and Ethiopia are currently at logger heads over the building of dam on the River Nile. Ethiopia, a landlocked territory, wants to have access to the sea peacefully or forcefully. Egypt is vehemently opposed. The future of this cannot but be disorderly as a result of Ethiopia’s order and Egypt’s counter-order. What about the threats of the Jihad? What about Nigeria’s own future? Can Africa be in peace if Nigeria does not have peace?. If Nigeria is destabilised, what will happy to the ECOWAS region? In fact, how do we address France as a neighbour of Nigeria by geo-political propinquity?
Insecurity and Franco-Nigerian Factor
The Franco-Nigerian factor is quite complex in explaining why Africa’s future may be bleak. On the one hand, Africa is a major definiendum of the foreign policies of both France and Nigeria. While France maintains a privileged relationship with Francophone Africa, and especially with the immediate neighbours of Nigeria, Africa is the centrepiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Consequently, Africa is necessarily an instrument for rivalry. France does not want Nigeria to be able to influence the Francophone African countries against her and Nigeria’s foreign policy stand is not different: prevent France from influencing the Francophone neighbours from being used to her detriment. Even though the ASS countries have strained their relationships with France, it cannot be rightly suggested that the strained relationship is helpful to Nigeria’s foreign policy interest. The point of emphasis here is that Franco-Nigeria rivalry has a centrifugal character in intra-African relations.
The policy of democratisation, which gave birth to the AU and ECOWASzero tolerance for unconstitutional changes of government in Africa, has its origin in France. At the sixteenth Franco-African summit, held on June 19-21, 1990, at the Brittany seaside resort of La Baule, there were 35 African countries represented by 22 Heads of State or Government, including King Hassan II of Morocco. President François Mitterrand of France told his audience that ‘France is determined to pursue its policy and therefore its aid to Africa,’ that the developed world should ‘renounce certain of their rights’ in order to have funds or a sort of guaranteed fund for developing nations, and that the ‘Western world must stop giving lessons to Africans ‘who have their own conscience and history.’
While France is telling the world that the people of Africa have their own conscience and history and therefore should not be dictated to, the same President Mitterrand made it clear to the assembly of Heads of State that there would no longer be development aid to any country that does not accept to democratise. In other words, democratisation became a conditionality for the grant of development assistance. President Mitterrand’s conditionality ignored the fact that the African people had conscience and history, and also knew how to define their own future. France presented and still presents herself as the spokesperson for Africa. And true enough, France, under President Mitterrand, had been calling for the establishment of a special international fund to assist under-developed countries.
Perhaps more interestingly, Mitterrand had it that ‘colonialism is not dead. It is no longer the colonialism of states, it is the colonialism of business.’ To what extent can the colonisation of states be separated from the colonisation of business? Who supports businesses or guarantees them? Who protects them? Are there no government businesses? Whatever is the case, President Mitterrand said the time of aiding and abetting dictatorial regimes was over, and that the new trend to follow is democracy.
However, empirical studies have shown that France only complied with her own set rules when it is convenient. The cases of constitutional fraud in the Côte d’Ivoire of Alassane Ouattara and the Chad of Idris Déby Itno are good illustrations. President Ouattara manipulated the Ivoirian constitution to ensure a third term in power. In Chad, when Déby Itno president lost his live at the battle field, his son was installed by the military in contradiction of the Chadian constitution which requires the President of the National Assembly to succeed and organise elections within the following six months. France closed her eyes not to see this irregularity. In fact, the African Union of zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government in Africa was mute and blind. The question cannot but be quo vadis Africa?
The coup d’état in Niger is a major issue in Franco-Nigerian relations. Nigeria has a policy of non-acceptance of exploitation and exportation of Africa’s mineral resources for the development of Europe but to the detriment of the interest of the host country of exploitation. As noted above, Niger Republic is one of the biggest producers of uranium which is being exploited by Orano, a French company, in the twin towns of Arlit and Akokan, 900 km northeast of Niamey.
As noted by Emmanuel Grégoire in his “Niger: A State Rich in Uranium (Hérodote, 2011/3, no 142), there is ‘insecurity resulting from the presence of AQIM in Mali’s territory, which was refuelled by western hostages in Niger… The renewed interest shown by the international community in Niger’s uranium deposits, and the revenues the country hopes to realise helps facilitate the task (underdevelopment). However, the economic situation is equally murky. Due to the recent emergence of China, now Niger’s second largest trading partner behind the former colonial power, a repositioning of geopolitics is underway as French hegemony is challenged. The Areva group has for over forty years imported more than 120,000 metric tons of Nigerien uranimate to supply French nuclear power plants.’
In this regard, what has Niger Republic really gained from the French exploitation of its uranium resources? In a Press Release by TNH on 10 October 2007 (see reliefweb.int), ‘as the global demand for nuclear energy rises, analysts say the large amount of uranium in Niger is not a benefit to the country’s people but adds to the serious problems facing the region.’ In fact, the revenue from uranium is a major reason for the demands of an armed militia, Niger Movement for Justice that has been fighting Niger’s army, and asking for an equitable distribution of the revenues from uranium mining.’ In essence, Jeremy Keenan, a fellow at the University of Bristol, says ‘the fact that the uranium is there is more negative than positive at the moment. It’s a curse on the region and the people of the region. It is potentially a very volatile situation.’ Put differently, if it is generally argued that ‘the people of Niger have not benefited from the 100,000 tonnes of uranium extracted over the past 36 years and Niger is the world’s third to fifth-ranking producer of uranium, producing over 3,000 tonnes of uranium a year,’ what future has Niger Republic as a poor country? How do we explain 36 years of uranium mining by France and without gain to the people of Niger? Could this have been an exaggeration by anti-French people? Additionally, is the future of the exploitation of Niger’s uranium not a matter of replacement of French hegemony with either that of China or Russia, meaning that Nigeria’s foreign policy will still continue to be seriously challenged? Will the exploitation of the uranium resources stop with the declaration of the French as unwanted? Can Nigeria ever have peace in the absence of Muammar Gaddafi’s prediction that Nigeria would never know peace until the country is divided into Muslim North and Christian South? If Nigeria cannot have peace, can there be peace in Africa? And if there is no peace in Africa, is Africa’s future not bleak?
